Expansion of Inquiry on Cisneros Was Denied(Damage Control!)

New York Times ^ | 01/19/06 | DAVID JOHNSTON

[ForGod'sSake]

~snip~

The decision by the lawyers, working under former Attorney General John Ashcroft, was disclosed in the final report of the independent prosecutor, David M. Barrett, which was issued Thursday. Mr. Barrett's investigation of Mr. Cisneros, the longest independent counsel inquiry in history, concluded that there was a possible cover-up by Clinton administration officials at the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service.

~snip~

"Barrett's allegations of a cover-up are nothing short of laughable, given that the Bush administration was in charge for the majority of his investigation, and it's clear he's simply making excuses to justify his expensive and fruitless witch hunt," Mr. Carson said.

[ForGod'sSake]

The New York Times breaks their silence......for this?!

[Reactionary]

I don't suppose the degenerates in Washington want to deal with Billy Boy's corruption. They would like to think we're all stupid animals without any sense of history.

But we know what happened. And we know how corrupt they are and how corrupt they remain.

[yarddog]

Strange as it sounds, I have no doubts at all that the Bush administration helped cover up Clinton cronies' crimes.

[TomGuy]

"Barrett's allegations of a cover-up are nothing short of laughable, given that the Bush administration was in charge for the majority of his investigation, and it's clear he's simply making excuses to justify his expensive and fruitless witch hunt," Mr. Carson said.

That's a bit of a stretch. The investigation began in 1995, so it went 5 years of Clinton administration and roughly the same for the Bush administration.

[TomGuy]

Strange as it sounds, I have no doubts at all that the Bush administration helped cover up Clinton cronies' crimes.

It may sound strange, but how many Clintonites have gotten more than a slap on the wrist since 00? Sandy Bergler got the most severe, so far, and his punishment was laughable, considering his crime of stealing and destroying classified documents. Probably the best thing that happened to the Clinton admin, ironically, was the election of Bush, because his Justice Dept has not pursued much of the Clinton corruption.

[gov_bean_ counter]

IIRC, the investigation was essentially over in around 2002. Barrett had to beg Congress for the funding necessary to write the report. The obstruction took place during the Clinton Administration. I would be interested in knowing who wrote the draft DOJ memo and if the issue was actually elevated to Ashcroft will all the information necessary to make a reasoned decision.

[the final gentleman]

Time will tell. I intend to ask Senator Richard Shelby about the redacted portion of the Barrett report Monday.

We'll see...

[Howlin]

and roughly the same for the Bush administration.

Barrett's investigation ended in 2001, shortly after his request to continue was denied; he's spent the rest of the time trying to get his report out.

[ForGod'sSake]

Media shenanigans ~ping~

[Mind-numbed Robot]

"Barrett's allegations of a cover-up are nothing short of laughable, given that the Bush administration was in charge for the majority of his investigation, and it's clear he's simply making excuses to justify his expensive and fruitless witch hunt," Mr. Carson said.

With Hillary mouthing off and the Democrats pushing the culture of corrupt BS, I am not sure if it is wise for Mr. Carson to taunt anyone on this.

[yarddog]

It really is starting to look like there is a cabal running Washington. Dare I say conspiracy?

Ok now all you rino nannies can start yelling "tin foil hat".

[Howlin]

given that the Bush administration was in charge for the majority of his investigation

That just simply is NOT true, no matter how many of them say it.

[yarddog]

You are right, but the Bush administration was in charge for most of the time when the report was being suppressed.

[Howlin]

but the Bush administration was in charge for most of the time when the report was being suppressed.

Not by the White House, by D E M O C R A T S.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

That just simply is NOT true, no matter how many of them say it.

It must be a genetic thing with them. They can't make a sentence without throwing in a lie or two.

[ForGod'sSake]

A timeline of sorts found HERE about a fourth of the way down the page. Be careful what you step in if go there.

The Pink Panther Elephant

The Guardian points out that Democrats recently failed to cut off funds for the continuing investigation of Henry Cisneros. Although Cisneros copped a plea in 1999, more time (and money) have been spent on the investigation since then than before. The rough timeline of this story is as follows:

• 1987: Cisneros, then Mayor of San Antonio, begins an extramarital affair with Linda Jones, then Linda Medlar. He gives her money for living costs and her daughter's college expenses.
• 1988: Cisneros admits affair and doesn't seek re-election.
• 1990: Jones begins to record conversations with Cisneros without his knowledge.
• 1991: Cisneros reconciles with his wife and ends relationship with Jones. He continues to send her money.
• 1992: Cisneros is under consideration for a cabinet position in the incoming Clinton administration.
• 1993: Cisneros lies about payments to Jones during his FBI background check. He is approved by Senate as Secretary of HUD.
• 1994: Cisneros cuts off payments to Jones. Jones hires attorneys. By her own admission, she subsequently edited the tapes to remove her own demands for money and threats to expose Cisneros.
• 1995: Cisneros settles a suit from Jones charging that he reneged on agreements to provide financial support. Special Counsel begins investigating Cisneros's statements to FBI. David Barrett is appointed as Independent Counsel. Jones, who also lied to FBI, is given immunity and cooperates with prosecutor.
• 1996: Cisneros leaves HUD. Barrett discovers that the tapes, which Jones has represented as original, are doctored and obtains warrant to search Jones's home.
• 1997: Jones is indicted for conspiracy, false statements to the Cisneros prosecution, and bank fraud. Cisneros is indicted for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to FBI.
• 1998: Jones pleads guilty to 28 felonies, is sentenced to 3 1/2 years.
• 1999: Jones is again working with Barrett in hopes of winning early release from prison. Cisneros pleads guilty to 1 misdemeanor count, agreeing to pay a fine but serve no jail time or probation. Cisneros becomes the first and only Clinton administration official convicted of criminal charges for acts related to their federal service. The Wash Post story on the plea bargain states it, "end[s] a wide-ranging independent counsel investigation that lasted more than four years and cost more than $9 million."
• 2001: Cisneros is pardoned by Bill Clinton.
• 2005: Investigation continues. Cost is now up to $21 million. Barrett states that, "the probe would continue another 10 months but [he] could not guarantee it would end then." There have been no indictments since 1999, and no clear statement of what Barrett has been investigating for the past 6 years.

[ForGod'sSake]

It really is starting to look like there is a cabal running Washington.

You mean "them" against "us"? Perish the thought; I'm sure they're there to do our bidding.

[Digger]

Strange as it sounds, I have no doubts at all that the Bush administration helped cover up Clinton cronies' crimes.

Yes. The "Two-Party Cartel" at it once again. All owned by the elites & do as they say & they say NO conservtive agenda will be allowed to flourish & destroy our lock on the sheeple.... but keep voting these pigs back in office & get the same shame governing we have had for decades because nobody will break their habits.

[Mia T]

bump

REDACTION LOOPHOLE: ACCESS TO THE BARRETT REPORT


WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)


GONE WITH THE WIND
(miss hillary's 'plantation' blunder)

[Mia T]

bump- good for you!

The aforementioned New York Times story is a perfect example of the kind of stories confected by the Clintons and their lawyers over the years. It appears to be fair-minded, but read carefully it is interlarded with the Clintons' defenses. The Times' story's first words contain the sullen line "longest independent counsel investigation in history." Soon Barrett's work is described as a "scathing report." Then we have this land mine: Barrett's work "came to be a symbol of the flawed effort to prosecute high-level corruption through the use of independent prosecutors." Later one of the individuals mentioned in the report is quoted as writing that the gravamen of the report is "a scurrilous falsehood."

Finally let us return to the Times' amazing omission, neglecting to mention that the Barrett Report as released yesterday has 120 pages redacted. How do we account for this error? Alas, the Times' leakers lied to the paper. Its story ends saying, "But after Congressional Republicans attached a rider to a Department of Housing and Urban Development spending bill requiring publication of the full report, the judicial panel in November ordered a full disclosure." That was not the end of it. Had a fact checker from the Times called me, I would have pointed out that later, in December, legislation was snuck through Congress that allowed the redactions to stand.

As Novak reports, those 120 pages can be seen by any member of Congress, who can then make them public. The drama continues.

Reporting the Report
The American Spectator ^ | 1/20/2006 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

REDACTION LOOPHOLE: ACCESS TO THE BARRETT REPORT

 

by Mia T, 01.20.06  

he judges who ostensibly redacted 120 pages of the Barrett report have a sense of humor if not sense of justice. In their rulings, they established a means by which the American people can see the redactions, but it requires the existence of at least one honest, selfless, courageous member of Congress.

The way it works: Any member of Congress can see the redactions simply by requesting access, and, unlike Barrett, can publish the redactions without fear of legal sanction.

COMPLETE ARTICLE

 

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME! 

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES

by Mia T, December 29, 2005

 

 

inch Sulzberger scurried to the C-SPAN confessional even as the fires raged under the mammoth heap of ash and twisted steel that was once the Twin Towers and 2801 human beings. He had to make certain no one would blame The New York Times....



COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH FOOTNOTES